In that link about the timeline of evolution it says that 1 billion years ago, there was multicellular life. Then 600 million years ago, there was simple animals.

So in 400 million years we went from clumps of cells on the ground to simple animals. How did that happen? That is mind-boggling.

As it happens, the phenomenon you describe (though a great deal of life was aquatic, so "clumps of cells on the ground" is probably not a good description) is thought to have occurred in the space of around 80 million years, from 580-500mya (the "Cambrian Explosion"). A significant development in the intervening period is the formation of the ozone layer. Another that is thought to have occurred is a global glaciation event. Either, or both, may have contributed to this. I'm not personally that familiar with the Cambrian Explosion to say much on it, though the Wikipedia entry looks like it's worth perusing.

They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.

It sounds like we need to address a misconception here.

We need to be clear about what evolution says, and - importantly - what it does not say. Evolution is descent with modification by means of natural selection.

Note the key word there: descent. This is really important, because what this means, and what evolution actually says, is that one can never escape one's ancestry. And biological classification of animals is all about ancestry.

There was once a BBC Television comedy series called "Red Dwarf", in which one of the members of the crew is a member of Felis sapiens, a humaniform species descended from domestic cats. After the other crew members, Rimmer and Lister, discover The Cat, Lister asks Holly for an explanation of what they have just seen:

Lister: Holly, what was that?Holly: During the radioactive crisis, Dave, your cat and her kittens were safely sealed in the hold; and they've been breeding there for three million years, and have evolved into the life-form you just saw in the corridor.Lister: I don't get it.Holly: Well, you know how mankind evolved from apes...Lister: Yeah, I know that.Holly: He evolved from cats. His ancestors were cats; he's descended from cats; he is a cat.

What this means is that of course any descendant of a dog will still be a dog - just as it will still be a member of the order "flesh-eaters" (carnivora), and it will still be a mammal, a therapsid, a chordate, an animal and a eukaryotic life-form.

That's definitional. It's a matter of cladistics, and of ancestry - which, in biology, happen to be pretty much the exact same thing. For any descendant of a dog not to be a dog would be a contradiction in terms.

If you think "macroevolution" entails the descendants of dogs one day being something other than dogs, then your notion of "macroevolution" isn't anything to do with evolution at all. They can no more not be dogs, than can any descendants you may have not have you as an ancestor. You would not say "prove to me that 2 = 9, or I will not accept mathematics", would you?

If you think "macroevolution" entails the descendants of dogs one day being something other than dogs, then your notion of "macroevolution" isn't anything to do with evolution at all. They can no more not be dogs, than can any descendants you may have not have you as an ancestor. You would not say "prove to me that 2 = 9, or I will not accept mathematics", would you?

Yes, that's the problem with evolution. Dogs will always have dog descendants. This would mean other species would not be able to form. How would they?

Dogs will always have dogsCats will always have catsFlies will always have flies

There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet. It belongs in the religious category.

No, just no, It's a hypothesis, and scientists are working on understanding the possible causes of abiogenesis, there are other alternatives as well, such as Panspermia.

Quote

If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.

Non-sequitar, you can't assert one thing in place of another, also occam's razor cuts out a god, why introduce something complex to as an explanation, it just begs the question of "Where did god come from", and asserting "god is eternal" explains everything by explaining nothing.

"Dog" is just a nickname of a specific subset of the species lupis, specificly Lupis Familiaris, scientifically "Dog" has no meaning.Same with cat.

And no one has ever stated that evolution REQUIRES one species to give birth to a completely different species, in fact it says quite the opposite.

EDIT:In order to understand how they formed, you have to have a strong understanding about how speciation occurs. It's not as clear cut as Creationists insist.

If one species can't form from another one, then how do species form? Speciation can only occur within the already existing species.

If two groups of a species are separated long enough for them to be too different to mate with each other THAT is speciation.The moment two animals are not chemically inter-fertile, you have speciation, you can see this demonstrated quite well in a phenomenon called "Ring-Species"

^ this seems to be what Creationists think evolution is.when in reality it's more like this:

A smooth transition from one species into another, the only reason we see distinct species now is because there has been more than enough time for each group of animal to diverge in their own ways to fulfill certain habitat requirements.

No, just no, It's a hypothesis, and scientists are working on understanding the possible causes of abiogenesis, there are other alternatives as well, such as Panspermia.

which is based on nothing but imagining.

Hypotheses have to come from somewhere, you don't pull it out of a goldfish's ass.

EDIT:Also, you still haven't fulfilled the obligations of the OP.

I have fulfilled the obligations. I guess me using a definition that was given by the university of berkeley is not good enough. Then, I must assume that you guys have a different definition of evolution, and disagree with the professors at berkeley.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Dogs will always have dogsCats will always have catsFlies will always have flies

So you don't believe there are different species of dog, cat, or fly?

I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet. It belongs in the religious category.

This is just plain silly. Because it's a hypothesis, it must be religious? No, it belongs in the "we don't have enough evidence, so we should keep looking for more" category.

Quote from: skeptic54768

If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.

Which is irrelevant. You can't rule anything out without evidence - but that doesn't mean that every conceivable explanation is equally probable. And given the problems with "God did it", it can hardly be considered probable at this point.

I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.

Fruit flies, house flies, and mosquitoes, are all flies. Quite a bit of difference there, wouldn't you say?

I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.

Fruit flies, house flies, and mosquitoes, are all flies. Quite a bit of difference there, wouldn't you say?

he wants to know why the fruit fly has yet to change into something......maybe because the food source they use for food and breeding (fruit) is plentiful?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

No, only Christianity is real. The rest are from the minds of demons influencing humans.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.